racketboy.com

Coincidentally I saw The Thing From Another World in a local theater last weekend! The first half hour or so is pretty dull with just a bunch of people milling about an arctic station, but once The Thing shows up it's a pretty good science-fiction movie of that vintage. To answer your question, the 1951 film is a lot different from 1982's The Thing mostly because the monster is completely different in the two films. The 1982 Thing is a shapeshifter able to take on the look and properties of any living thing it touches, while the 1951 Thing is really just a big Frankenstein. Oh, and though the 1951 Thing is a humanoid, the station's scientist explains that the creature evolved from vegetation, so it's really just a walking, hulking, carnivorous plant. One of the characters literally calls it a "super carrot."

Both films are adapted from a 1930s science-fiction novella. I haven't read it but I believe the 1982 film is a lot closer to the original story with its shapeshifting monster. While the two Thing movies share a similar setting, the first movie feels more like the original Alien than anything else. Alien's screenwriter has admitted to lifting ideas from the 1951 Thing, and you can see it in the way the monster in each film is tracked and trapped, and the similar motives and actions of the scientist in the 1951 Thing and Alien's Ash.

Dead Snow 2

This was disappointing. In true sequel fashion, it tries to do more than the first movie, but in the process just becomes less entertaining. There's more action and more gory deaths, but they all feel sort of unnecessary. There's a big huge scene that features zombies fighting other zombies...which is lame. The only thing a zombie should ever be trying to kill in a zombie movie...is a human being. There's also these lame ass characters who are just a bunch of nerd stereotypes who fancy themselves as zombie hunters, because apparently playing D&D, wearing tacky trench coats, and watching lots of Star Wars makes you a badass zombie killer. I kept waiting for them to become zombie food, yet the movie makes them into legitimate bad asses who survive the whole movie. All three of them were annoying and I was disappointed that they never got eaten.

There's hardly any casualties in this movie at all (except for tons of nobody characters that aren't important to the story), which for a zombie movie is kind of disappointing, The one exception is this one gay character who gets killed right before announcing to everyone that he's gay...which is supposed to be funny...I guess? I'm not sure what they were going for there. I didn't particularly like the character but what an odd way to kill him off. There's also some cop characters...who never really do anything but keep getting screen time for some reason. The main character of the movie is a survivor from the first movie, which is lame as it ruins the first movie's ending. Also, the motivations behind the zombie attacks in the previous movie just gets kind of retconned in this sequel, because it has to be in order for there to even be a sequel.

Also, the movie ends on a fucking awful and disgusting joke.

Fright Night (1985)

This was...okay. It's a silly, campy sort of Vampire movie. There's a few funny moments, but ultimately this is a forgettable movie. Some of these old 80s movies don't hold up well when watching them now. Like if I were to compare this to something like this year's Renfield, a more modern take on a vampire horror/comedy movie, I'd say Renfield is way more fun to watch. Although maybe after seeing Evil Dead 2 it's just tough for other 80s horror comedies to impress me

Golgo 14 wrote:Coincidentally I saw The Thing From Another World in a local theater last weekend! The first half hour or so is pretty dull with just a bunch of people milling about an arctic station, but once The Thing shows up it's a pretty good science-fiction movie of that vintage. To answer your question, the 1951 film is a lot different from 1982's The Thing mostly because the monster is completely different in the two films. The 1982 Thing is a shapeshifter able to take on the look and properties of any living thing it touches, while the 1951 Thing is really just a big Frankenstein. Oh, and though the 1951 Thing is a humanoid, the station's scientist explains that the creature evolved from vegetation, so it's really just a walking, hulking, carnivorous plant. One of the characters literally calls it a "super carrot."

Both films are adapted from a 1930s science-fiction novella. I haven't read it but I believe the 1982 film is a lot closer to the original story with its shapeshifting monster. While the two Thing movies share a similar setting, the first movie feels more like the original Alien than anything else. Alien's screenwriter has admitted to lifting ideas from the 1951 Thing, and you can see it in the way the monster in each film is tracked and trapped, and the similar motives and actions of the scientist in the 1951 Thing and Alien's Ash.

That's pretty interesting, particularly how The Thing From Another World influenced later movies. I think I read somewhere that John Carpenter was a fan of it, which is probably why he made his own version

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)



This is a good, solid movie. It is so good at building tension. I spent most of the movie dreading someone catching a bullet. Speaking of which, the first time someone in the movie DOES get shot...it's pretty goddamn shocking. I'm pretty sure that scene would ruffle a lot of feathers if we saw it in a movie today. I'll just leave it at that. There's an air of danger throughout the entire film that never really goes away. This is an action movie that is grounded in reality. No John Wick type stuff here, just a group of people in a dangerous situation and dealing with it as best an any normal person could. It isn't even really an action movie, more of a thriller. This is really a movie about survival. There is one pretty badass action scene though, and a pretty hilarious joke later on that ties back to it. That joke was one of my favorite moments

I love the dialog between the characters too. Seeing them get to know each other in a rather tense situation is pretty great and there's some great lines. The performances are all great. Laurie Zimmer in particular really stood out. Every character copes with the dire situation they are in in different ways. She just has that this calm, quiet strength to her.

So I've seen four Carpenter movies now. This movie, Big Trouble in Little China, The Thing, and Escape from New York. Maybe I'll see They Live next. I don't think I've ever actually watched it, but I've seen and heard so much about it over the years that I can't say I'll be going into it spoiler free. Oh well

Prince of Darkness (1987)



Holy fucking shit! This is one of the weirdest, creepiest, most bizarre, surreal movies I've ever seen. It's a horror movie infused with philosophy, scientific mumbo jumbo, some HP Lovecraft style horror, and lots of religious themes and imagery. The whole movie feels like a freakish, awful dream. In fact, some of the stuff you see is pure nightmare fuel, particularly if you have an aversion to insects. For my money this movie is waaaaaay more scary and genuinely disturbing than The Thing, even though everyone raves about that one but never talks about this movie.

The Thing is just about some stupid alien. This movie is about something primordial, ancient, all encompassing, all powerful, and cosmic in nature.



Not everything in this movie makes sense (some of the science stuff sounds like complete nonsense), but it's full of effective jump scares, an unsettling soundtrack, some truly grotesque imagery, and just a general feeling of things teetering on the edge of insanity. I love how a certain character just seems to completely appear out of nowhere in some scenes, like the character was there the whole time but you don't see them until Carpenter wants you do. There's a dream sequence that keeps popping up in the movie, that feels like a merging of sci fi with the supernatural...it's pretty unnerving. There's some claustrophobic terror in this movie that works well, and the way people casually get either killed or...worse, keeps you guessing about what's gonna happen to everyone.



I'll say this for John Carpenter, he's really fucking good at creating a mood. This movie just makes you uncomfortable and on edge, and Assault on Precinct 13 just made you tense, constantly worry about something bad happening to the main characters at any moment, that feeling that anyone could die. The early scenes with the dog in The Thing also just felt...creepy and unnerving. Like you knew something was just not right about it.

If you're up for something creepy, unnerving, and a bit confusing, this is worth a watch. I actually was a bit sad when the movie ended as I was really engrossed in it and wanted more.

Maximum Overdrive



So I believe this is the movie Stephen King is ashamed of, and the only one he's directed.

So I'll get the negative stuff out of the way. It's full of stupid characters with some subpar acting and dialog. The story kind of drags in the middle and honestly never really goes anywhere interesting. The concept is neat, planet earth caught in the tail of a comet while some kind of aliens attempt to wipe out the human race via turning all machines and technology into weapons of murder. The story just doesn't really take that into an interesting direction and the ending of the movie is kind of lame. On the positive side though...

There is so much fun chaos and carnage in this movie

I love seeing all of the crazy and funny ways the machines kill people in this movie. Early in the movie there is a scene of a draw bridge going up while there is still traffic on it. Oh my god does this scene deliver such glorious violence and chaos! There's another fun scene where a vending machine goes crazy and start attacking people with soda cans. There are moments in this movie where you're seeing death everywhere like a zombie movie, but it's all people killed by every day appliances.




This movie also has lots of big trucks and does lots of fun stuff with them. There's a fun chase scene at one point, there's trucks running people over, and lots and lots of trucks blowing up!!!!

Usually from fucking rocket launchers!!!

Oh, and there's a fucking awesome scene involving a turret gun murdering people...then delivering a message in Morse code demanding that the humans (that is hasn't killed) fill up the evil murder trucks with gas as I guess they used it all up terrorizing them

So the characters end up filling up them, and apparently every damn truck in the area that shows up later, all while flipping these trucks the bird and dropping F bombs. It's so ridiculous

This movie's bonkers and stupid as hell...but god it has some really fun moments. For me, this is one of those good, bad movies. Oh it's very flawed for sure, the movie is at its worse when it wastes time focusing on its shitty characters and crap story, but it gets fun whenever it gets back to the death, carnage, and mayhem, some of which is pretty damn funny. And here's something to think about with all the AI we're hearing about these days:

Fright Night (2011)



You know, a lot of people hate remakes, but I think anything can be justified as long as you do it right. To just say that all remakes are bad or that they're all just cash grabs is kind of silly. I'm aware that the original Fright Night has some dedicated fans, but I thought it was kind of meh (though I did like Roddy McDowall's performance) . It wasn't bad per say, it just felt like the type of movie that was maybe fun back when it came out or one of those movies you maybe watched when you were younger and have those rose tinted nostalgia glasses for. I don't think it's aged particularly well. This remake on the other hand, I loved it! The only reason I watched it is because I remember reading something somewhere on this forum by prfsnl_gmr saying that it was pretty decent. I fully agree.

There are some nods to the original (as well as a cameo) and the basic plot is roughly the same, but they have tweaked and modified some elements of the original's story, and it's all for the better. We get a few more characters doing stuff in this version, and the changes to the original story also allow for a bit more action, something the original lacked.

I like that we have a vampire who is less of that Twilight/Interview with a Vampire type that is just kind of a Nancy Boy. Colin Farrell is more of a thug-ish, brutish sort of character who is more than happy to cause a little havoc (like blowing shit up), drink a few beers, and actually get his hands dirty. He doesn't need to hide behind anyone like his counterpart from the original movie, who was always hiding behind his familiar. This is a vampire who is far more in your face and monstrous than the one in the original.



Evil is a much better character in this version, though I think he got a bit less screen time. Evil in the original just felt like a joke character. In the remake, he is an actual character and more than just a joke.

Amy is a much stronger character in this version, and less annoying than she was in the original. I also think Imogen Poots just fits the role better than Amanda Bearse did.

I like Charley's mom factoring into the story a bit more in this one.

And then there's David Tennant as Peter Vincent. Is it weird that I get a little giddy whenever I realize that whatever I'm watching has Tennant in it? The guy is so fucking good. He is immensely entertaining in this. Also, his character has an interesting back story in this one, unlike the original.

This is a fun movie with some good comedy, but it also has moments with legit tension. There was one awesome moment in the movie that legitimately startled me in a cool way. After a scene full of tension, this happens:

Spoiler



That...was....awesome...but was also kind of a sad moment too.

If there is one thing that I actually like about the original that I wish they had kept in this version, it's:

Spoiler



So yeah, I really enjoyed this. I now have a little more appreciation for the original as well because...this awesome remake wouldn't exist without it. I think the remake is a better movie, but who cares? People can love whichever one they want, or just love both!

Yesterday while I was doing laundry and playing my Switch, I threw on Beavis and Butthead Do the Universe.

Still funny AF.

Watched The Shining last night. I've never seen it before so a month or so ago I splurged on the 4K Blu-ray. Last night I finally pulled the trigger and I'm so glad I did.

Watched "strays" last night, laughed my ass off. But I'm amused by silly, raunchy comedies like Ted, or sausage party. I figured it would just get stupid after the hilarious opening, but continued to be a funny ass road trip movie with potty mouth dogs. It's nice to just sit back and laugh and not have to think watching a movie. We need more good R rated comidies.

Hey folks!

I don't stop in here too often these days (though I do lurk on occasion), but I was recently thinking of this thread in relation to its role in helping me discover a lot of great movies over the years (perhaps because the "month of horror" is coming up ). It's great to see such great writing still going on.

The last movie I saw was All Quiet on the Western Front (2022), which is a great example of a remake that doesn't feel unnecessary. I thought the cinematography was quite striking - everything looked like it was shot on a film stock that mirrored what I think of as the palette of a lot of the color photography from the WW1 era, so it allowed for the film to feel simultaneously old and new in a way I appreciated. It was also interesting watching it with my youngest (who is now 14 ), who did well with all the sadness and gore (including the "fork scene") and was able to pick up nicely on the film's ideologies. Well acted and with some of the best sound I've heard in a modern war film, it was a fun way to get sad.



--
I also thought many of the old-timers on here would be interested to know that I myself have started making films over the past few years and am currently in the middle of a "tour" of sorts screening my first feature documentary film at various theaters, conferences, and festivals. It is called NEPADOC. You can check it out here if you are interested: http://www.nepadoc.com. If you happen to be in the Mid-Atlantic and want to catch a screening, we'll be in most corners of Pennsylvania in the next few months, including at some venues near NY/NJ and MD/DC that we haven't announced yet - all dates will be posted to the website. We're hoping to make it available everywhere in time



I'll try to poke my head in here more often...

dsheinem wrote:I also thought many of the old-timers on here would be interested to know that I myself have started making films over the past few years and am currently in the middle of a "tour" of sorts screening my first feature documentary film at various theaters, conferences, and festivals. It is called NEPADOC. You can check it out here if you are interested: http://www.nepadoc.com. If you happen to be in the Mid-Atlantic and want to catch a screening, we'll be in most corners of Pennsylvania in the next few months, including at some venues near NY/NJ and MD/DC that we haven't announced yet - all dates will be posted to the website. We're hoping to make it available everywhere in time



I'll try to poke my head in here more often...

That’s awesome! Congrats, DSH. I’ll definitely check it out.